October 29, 2012

The most obvious impression a fair-minded observer derives from a sustained exposure to the work of the late Arthur R. Jensen (1923-2012), professor of psychology at Berkeley, is that Dr. Jensen was a man of the highest distinction, not just scientifically, but also morally.

Not surprisingly, this often drove the less, shall we say, morally distinguished into paroxysms of rage. From the Daily Mail:

TODAY, American eugenics professor Arthur Jensen addresses a gathering of academics in London. The Daily Mail does not agree with his views on intelligence indeed, we profoundly disagree with them. However, we feel that open debate is the best way of establishing the truth and that our readers are quite capable of drawing their own conclusions.

FOR three decades, Professor Arthur Jensen has lived in the shadow of death and violence.

It is difficult, however, to feel sorrow for him. In Australia, he was extricated from a baying mob by 100 police officers.

In Germany, warnings were issued that if he were allowed to lecture he might not leave the stage alive.

On his own university campus, at Berkeley, California, he was, at the height of his vilification, protected against those who threatened to kill him by armed bodyguards.

His car tyres were slashed and his door was sprayed with swastikas by his own students, who gathered in the corridor to hiss as he walked by.

This week, to little fanfare, the world's most demonised scientist arrived in London, where he once learned his theories and where he will deliver the keynote address today at a conference devoted to eugenics, or the enhancement of the human race.

To his supporters, Jensen - an Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology possesses one of the finest scientific minds of our time, worthy of a Nobel Prize.

To his countless opponents, of whom President Bill Clinton is one, he is a dabbler in the unthinkable.

Sadly, the world will never be treated to a Jensen - Clinton debate ...

23 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I didn't know that Bill Clinton ever publicly said a word about Jensen, although I do recall Clinton denouncing The Bell Curve and then admitting he had not read it. I'd like to hear what Clinton said, but Googling 'Bill Clinton Arthur Jensen' brings this blog-post up as my first result.

The interesting thing is that the piece opens with the Daily Mail stating "we feel that open debate is the best way of establishing the truth and that our readers are quite capable of drawing their own conclusions."

By 2006 Mary Riddell had moved from the DM to the Observer. In discussing the case of Frank Ellis at Leeds University, she makes clear that open debate is not a good thing after all:

"This bigot has no place in the lecture...

Freedom of speech should be cherished and defended, but there is no excuse for tolerating racial lies masquerading as academic truths...As inspiration, he cites Arthur Jensen, former emeritus professor at Berkeley. I have met Jensen, a eugenicist who, building on the legacy of Francis Galton and Hans Eysenck, argues that a 15 per cent IQ gap between black and white people is genetically ordained. His theories, demolished by mainstream peers, such as Stephen Jay Gould, are hateful. But even Jensen, the scientific racist, has a dispassion lacking in his disciple's echo."

Although Bill Clinton may not be a fan of Jensen's work, I know of one former American president who is, or at least was. A little known fact that seems to have gone down the memory hole is that in 1969 while George Bush Sr was serving in Congress as the head of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population, he invited William Shockley and Arthur Jensen to testify on dysgenic fertility patterns. This seems to have gone largely unmentioned except for in a few conspiracy orientedbooks. One wonders if Bush Sr's views have changed since he has refashioned himself as a global humanitarian with Bill Clinton at his side.

In the Miele book Jensen reveals that he corresponded with Daniel Patrick Moynihan who had also got into trouble for political incorrectness. Apparently Richard Nixon also followed Jensen's work with interest.

Ah but thats the thing, to these people eugenics is a crazed belief, its not real, dysgenics likewise is not real.

Well, to the true believer types eugenics is "pseudoscience," yes. But I just can't bring myself to believe that deniers at the highest levels, who are absorbed in the academic literature, actually think this way. As I see it they're leftwing moral crusaders -- more plainly, liars. In their minds, I sometimes suppose, they are the thin line standing between freedom for all peoples and the appointment of Hitler to the chancellery. What else could explain the incredible hysteria that they respond to straightforward race-talk with?

A minimalist definition of a "eugenicist" could be someone who believes that all this Jensen stuff matters, and that it's going to keep on mattering whether anyone cares to discuss it or not, so best to discuss it, because that way it might be mitigated. Following from this, a "dysgenicist" would be someone who insists that no good whatsoever can come from discussing it, that any attempt at all to mitigate it would have such a devastatingly demoralizing effect on those deemed -- and potentially eventually publicly acknowledged as -- "inferior" that no possible future benefit from eugenics could possibly hope to compensate for it; it'd be pure misery for all concerned, in this view.

Since to fail to practice eugenics is, given the modern welfare state, to practice dysgenics, the question has to be asked: is the greater folly Jensen's, for taking the positions he did, or the does the greater folly redound to the armies of bureaucrats, journalists, academics and activists who rose up to denounce him?

A Clinton-Jensen debate wouldn't be as interesting as you think. Clinton doesn't actually know anything about the subject. He would however play to the cheap seats, quite probably successfully. The two of them would be talking about completely different subjects. Afterwards the usual idiots in the media (ie all of them) would shout that he was the victor.

On this subject the media really isn't interested in the truth. They're trying to actively not think about the truth.

Had I read this article as a young person I would have been more likely to attend a Jensen lecture as otherwise. Not because I had realistic beliefs about HBD at that age, I didn't. But, because I was very attuned to the use of hyperbole in reporting (especially when the hyperbole was unaccompanied by fact) and I would have inferred, correctly, that the author was seeking to hide something (Jensen's work). Such ham handed treatments were a challenge to seek something out. Today's Lefties are cleverer, they simply ignore the offending academic.

As an exceptionally bright and focused teenager, Jensen at about age 15 or so, wrote an account of Ghandi's life and thought and drew from it principles of conduct he felt were Ghandian and that he dedicated himself to follow. If he has given permission for thismanuscript to become accessible in due course at this point, it would be of central significance to understanding his refusal to be cowed or compromised.

"eugenics" in the form of selective breeding of farm animalsbecame widespread (as means evolved of enclosing "commons" ) inthe 18th century and beyond. Itwas not "pseudoscience" that within two centuries produced dramatric increases in the amount and quality of milk, etc. It is a dramatic story but it has a way of not being set forth starkly in print, in video.. Shhhhhh.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.